Modern Warfare 3 Isn't An Un-Game, John Walker. You Are An Un-Player (And That Is OK)

On Wednesday we posted this, an argument from Rock Paper Shotgun's John Walker claiming that Modern Warfare 3 was an "un-game with a core of nastiness". We asked Brendan Keogh, of Kill Screen magazine and Edge fame, to respond...

Dear John,

I don’t think we’ve ever talked before so I want to begin by saying that I have utmost respect for your opinions and for the endlessly awesome writing you produce over at Rock Paper Shotgun. You are an alright guy!

With that in mind, I have to say something in response to your alarmingly negative editorial on Modern Warfare 3. I say “alarming” as, reading your post, it seems as though we played completely different games. Modern Warfare 3’s single-player campaign is currently sitting atop my Favourite Game of 2011 list. Bar none. I found it exhilarating, dramatic, and heart-pounding. I was fascinated with how it directed me so beautifully through its set pieces -- I always did exactly what I was meant to do without feeling coerced. I finished the entire game in one sitting, not including the few times I had to take a break to slow my heart palpitations and stop my hands from shaking. I know we game critics aren’t meant to use these words but gosh darn it my experience of Modern Warfare 3 was utterly visceral and utterly immersive.

So I want to be clear, I am not saying that you should love the game because I love the game. You are more than welcome to dislike it. It would be a sad, sad world if we all loved and hated the same games.

But there is something in your critique that rubbed me the wrong way. Something I couldn’t let pass by without remarking on. Your issues with the plot and the cliché Russia-bad-America-good scenario are totally valid. I have not experienced any of the glitches you mentioned in either of my playthroughs, but perhaps that is because I played on 360, so I won’t challenge you on that.

No, it was something else. Something in the way you seem to use player freedom as a metric for the game’s quality (or lack thereof). Something about how you classify Modern Warfare 3 an “un-game”, as though it has (or lacks) attributes necessary to be a videogame. I could not disagree with this more and, as such, I don’t say what I am about to say lightly: something that might shake broader videogame criticism to its horrible, player-centric core...

You, sir, played the game wrong.

That’s a pretty big claim, I know. Not only that, it is a provocative claim. Is it even possible for a game to be played “wrong”? Isn’t the player always right? Isn’t that the beauty of videogames, that the player gets to decide what to do, and that they have the freedom to make choices and do whatever they want?

Well, no.

We humans sure do like to think we are the most important thing ever (remember when we thought the entire universe spun around us?). As such, it is easy to think the player is the be-all and end-all of everything in a videogame. Of course, when we do put ourselves at the centre of things, we tend to miss what is actually happening: a much more complex relationship of player and videogame.

Us videogame critics do it all the time. We always talk about how important it is for the player to be able to do whatever they want and have freedom and make choices and all that. We always say “emergence” as though it is inherently good and “linear” as though it is inherently bad. But think about it. What actually makes videogames pleasurable has far less to do with freedom or mastery or control and far more to do with being controlled.

We play videogames by participating with them as equals, not by becoming some god-like master over them. We enjoy entering a game, suspending disbelief, and voluntarily giving in to its limitations and restrictions and doing what is asked of us. This is as true of Modern Warfare 3 as it is of Minecraft.

In this vein, you mention how you are baffled that the Modern Warfare 3 player doesn’t want to be the hero or the leader but merely the follower. In your player-centric critique where freedom is seemingly paramount, you are bewildered that people can get any enjoyment out of following orders. That’s because you were too busy trying to master the game when, really, to enjoy Modern Warfare 3 you need to participate with it. You need to do what it asks you to do, when it asks you to do it.

And if you can bring yourself to do this, Modern Warfare 3 is an absolutely breathtaking experience. Each level is so perfectly, carefully paced and scripted so that you always have just enough control over what is happening to forward the events of the plot. And sure, that plot is absurd, but you feel so engaged in it, you feel so present in it that its absurdity hardly matters while you are playing.

But if you don’t participate with the game, if you stubbornly refuse to do what the game asks of you, how can you expect to enjoy it? The beauty of the Modern Warfare series is that, unlike so many other linear games, it doesn’t lie to you. It never pretends you are in charge. “Follow this man!” say Nikolai and that is exactly what you do. You aren’t calling the shots. You aren’t in charge here. You are following orders. You are just one man participating in a conflict much bigger than yourself. In short, this isn’t about you.

And for me, that was thrilling. I gave in to the game and I did what it told me to do. I followed. I kicked down doors. I took cover. I manned the gun. I held position. On several occasions, I died. To bastardise something Edge Magazine’s Feature Editor Jason Killingsworth said on Twitter, I got on the rollercoaster and I didn’t once stop to wonder where my steering wheel was.

You, on the other hand, played it wrong. What you have essentially done is walk out onto a soccer field with a cricket bat and gotten outraged when the referee told you you couldn’t use it. Certainly, you are more than welcome to try to play Modern Warfare 3 any which way you want. Go for it. Further, you are certainly entitled to not enjoy the kind of participation Modern Warfare 3 requires of you. That is all fine! But labelling it an “un-game” simple because you refuse to cooperate with it is patently unfair. And saying it is just “brainless fun” for “consumers” because it doesn’t let you feel special with some arbitrary amount of freedom is simply insulting.

Modern Warfare 3 isn’t an un-game, John, you are an un-player. And that is okay! You own the game; do whatever you want with it! But when you un-play the game, when you refuse to suspend your disbelief and to participate with the game in creating the kind of experience that game requires of you, you can hardly criticise the game for not working.

So this is what I ask of you, and of all videogame critics and players alike: stop using “freedom” as a metric for a game’s quality or, even worse, for a game’s gameness. Every game is a dance between player and code, but that doesn’t mean the player always gets to lead. A game that leads the player can be just as meaningful, significant, intelligent, stimulating or exhilarating as a game that lets the player do whatever they wish (within the games confines). The player is not the centre of the equation, and neither is the game. It’s the interrelationship between the player and the game that matters most.

Brendan Keogh once sat through an entire 48-hour Game Jam in Brisbane, just to watch himself die. You can follow him on Twitter here

Comments

I get that a cinematic rollercoaster is great fun every now and then. But the major problem with MW3 is that it was terrible at being that cinematic rollercoaster, even in comparison to its predecessors. Pacing was shot, scripting more invasive than ever, and the link between those set pieces even flimsier. MW3 isn't just a crap game, it's a crap entry in the Modern Warfare series. I have quite a bit of respect for some of the things that Modern Warfare 1, 2 and Black Ops attempted. I have no respect for MW3.

I agree. I've thoroughly enjoyed all previous Modern Warfare games, along with Black Ops, but MW3 is probably the only one out of the series that's left a bitterness in my mouth. I enjoyed the set pieces and whatnot, but there was something lacking in the game. Same with multiplayer - I just can't seem to get into it. I know it's the same formula as before and I enjoy it, but MW3 just has something I don't like.
It'll be interesting to see if Treyarch become better at making COD games than IW. In my opinion, Black Ops is still better than MW3.

I agree with both of you, but I'm more angry at the fact that we got soooooo Ripped off by it. It was supposed to be a GOOD game and all they did was take MW2 and edit the maps and guns. Infinity Ward got extremely lazy with this one!

Yet, it's the highest grossing "call of duty" game within the first 24 hours simply because of what it is.

I've played battlefield longer than i have played cod, but i don't want you to think this is a fanboy comment. Far from it. I loved call of duty - the first 2 "modern warfare's" that is. But at the end of 2, i got a bit tired, and when i saw this game, it looked more of the same.
Now that being said, i'm scared to try modern warfare 3 because i don't want to waste a weekend playing a short campaign with more of the same stuff. I'm not putting the game down - i would've loved to play a good sequel, but that's the reality of it.

That brings me back to my original point. The only reason people are flocking for this game is for what it is - a "call of duty" game. Every man and his dog went ballistic over black ops, and now look. Same thing.
I read a comment during obama's campaign stating that people will always (in the back of their minds) vote for what he is, rather than who he is.

one thing that everyone is forgetting is go ahead and look at your mw3 case you'll find out that treyarc actually worked on this infinity ward was put on there just cuz some people would be like omg its not them better buy something else and trust me i'm not saying mw3 is the best cuz i felt they could have done alot more for the time it took. i can agree multiplayer is a little rough on the edges too.

Even though MW and MW2 were good titles, speaking in terms of their single player campaigns, they weren't video games. I'm not entirely sure that John Walker was getting at this point when he made his critique of MW3, but they are interactive cinematic experiences. Much the same way as edutainment titles are incorrectly called serious games, in that they are interactive learning environments. You are acting out your role to get to end game.

You are not playing, because you aren't exploring the game space. You are following the path laid out for you and will experience nothing more than the narrative set in front of you. Pace is dictated, arsenal is dictated and so is progress, just as it would be in a film. The major difference being; that you are the one pressing buttons to interactively make the character do what you and he are told.

That's not to say that these experiences are invalid, as else I may as well go and say the movie industry is worthless, or that reading a book is pointless because you can't amend the story to suit your own preferences, or at least not within the confines of that title. Interactive cinematic experiences have their worth so long as they are understood as such.

I've not played MW3 so I cannot comment on how successful it is at accomplishing that criteria, but if what you say is true then even IW themselves are probably unsure of what it is that they are trying to achieve anymore.

Agreed! I used to love the CoD series until they became a mainstream product, they should terminate the Modern Warfare monikers while its reputation is still good because I dont think they can pull of another MW4 without evolving.

I WANT A MILITARY SHOOTER IN AN OPEN URBAN ENVIRONMEN, SMART,ADAPTABLE A.I., SEMI-DESTRUCTIBILITY. (not the entire building coming down orgy kind of destruction).
AND I WANT TO PART OF AN ARMY, NOT JUST A TEAM OF 4 FUCKING SPEC OPS GUYS.
IS IT TOO MUCH TOO ASK?

This. For rollercoaster rides, CoD4 had a fantastic balance of holy shit urgent action and slower paced stuff, while keeping an overall lid on it's story and cast. It was, and is, a campaign that I happily play again.

All Ghillied Up was my favorite COD4 mission :D I used to play that incessantly right to the end. I remember using the 50 cal sniper rifle and firing at different times, to see if I could take off more than his arm etc. Turns out no, but hey it was major fun trying. COD4 was a great game, MW2 was a good game imho, I loved both campaigns, both had levels such as 'WOLVERINES!' which were memorable and had great setpieces, but I just can't get that same feeling with MW3. It kinda feels... vanilla?

Also commonly known as a QTE, and most critics hate them. Just look at reviews for Travellers Tales' Jurassic Park game!

I think Johns point was that the MW3 has turned the FPS into a fancy QTE. Press "E" to use this now!
Press left mouse button to fire this now!
Shoot at this now!, then this!
Fail to follow those prompts, and you'll fail, or nothing will happen.
Wow look at how cinematic this all was! Oh what's that? You were too busy following all those prompts to notice?

I agree. The MW series has become a joke. It's designed for the dull minded masses, those who also like to paddle eachothers arses with bats. This also probably explains why it is so damn popular too.

I can't wait for the MW4 storyline set on the mobile island fortress of Tasmania as the Russian ultra-nationalists put it into a 2 year orbit around the USA (through the Panama canal) threatening to fire off a barrage of nuclear missiles at each major US city.

I think there's a similar point to be made about the Uncharted series - you're not given freedom to do whatever you want to do, you're being led from point to point to do the things the game wants you to do, and most of the fun is in playing those events.

Having not played MW3, and not being a particularly big fan of FPSs in general, I can't judge it. But I think it should be assessed for the type of game it wants to be, not the type of game it "should" be.

I could also say Star Fox 64 (Yes I went there) could be judged the similarly to MW3. Even though Star Fox 64 is considered by most people (and by that I mean 90 to 99%) to be better than MW3, it still is linear, has a lot of set-pieces, and doesn't give you as much freedom as a lot of other games. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, because it is really good, it just means it's linear.

Personally while i didn't find MW3's campaign bad i didn't find it good neither. I thought that while the terror plot and all that etc was ok for COD game i didn't really like what they did with certain characters and for that reason i thought the campaign was the worst of all the MW games.

I agree with most of this article, as it takes a fairly even handed approach to understanding what's really going on between a player and a game. Throwing terms like 'immersive' and 'linear' as stickers for good or bad grades oversimplifies things too much I think. So it's good to see a write up of the ways in which restrictive game mechanics can actually be enjoyable. And really, no game gives complete freedom. There are always restrictions. Take away those restrictions, and you don't have a game.

On my actual experience though, I enjoyed the single player campaign. It's popcorn movie stuff, but it was fun. using big guns, blowing stuff up, butchering loads of enemies.. all in a days play right?

On a side note, I really enjoyed playing as the Russian protective service guy trying to save the Russian president. They probably could have done way more with that, but still good to see it in game anyway.

I'd have to say that THE BEST games out there are not a lead/unlead dance but a free exchange of interesting and varied actions and reactions.

It is far more rewarding and meaningful if you have a direct impact on what happens in a game. It is easy for a game that is throwing EPIC things at you to overload you as a player and cause you to not care about outcomes in the game as it is in your face scripted.

For example: A player shoots an enemy and the enemy falls off a railing vs. A player shoots an enemy prisoner while he desperately tries to escape jumping fences.

The first being pointless where the second is an emotional, really bad situation to be in.

Old Call of Duty games had emotion and some meaning brought out through purposeful music and pacing of the game itself. They were varied and responded to your actions in way that MW3 simply does not do.

WM3 seems schizophrenic , just like Battlefield 3 in that it's on 110% all the way through the game :S

I think the developers of these franchises need to rethink there reasoning of choosing to make these games so choiceless from a player's point of view.

I'm no talking about turning them into RPGs or anything like that but having some really emotional responses needed from the player would be great!

Such as:

"Do we take enemies as prisoners?"
"Do we blindly follow orders, even if the outcome is bad?"
"Do we use inhumane weapons because it is a means to achieve a cause?"

And finally I think that they need to focus more on the clear senselessness of war and not on the "rah, rah, its us vs. them" attitude.

I agree with this one. You need the down moments. One of the greatest rock n roll records ever made only had 6 great songs out of 12 on it - half of the songs were stupid and emotionless and about childish shit. The other half were emotional and gut wrenching and this was emphasised by the self-consciously silly other half. I mean, if you were making a record you would think "we need the BEST 12 songs EVER", but really... if those other songs work in context somehow with these silly songs, the point may be driven home in a way that it never could. Perhaps this is a pretty peculiar example, but I think it's somehow relevant to games. I really have enjoyed the MW series, though I understand that the horse has been kicked many times already that it's starting to become the same ol' thang - and these games just throw action at you constantly - everything seems like the most important thing EVER. I think you need that 'down' time to reset the intensity, otherwise it's going to leave as much of a mark on you as Transformers 3 did.

(Also that album I was referring to was Let It Be by the Replacements. One of the greatesetttttasdajsdgfaklsdjg GEDDIT)

Oh it's on now, tie their right wrists to each other and hand them broken bottles Beat It style!

Personally I find my taste lies somewhere between these two men (whoa that could be taken out of context), while I find the MW campaigns exciting and fun in bursts, I'm constantly annoyed at the rigid structure of levels and the inability to react with your environment, ESPECIALLY opening doors.

This was my favourite line though: "It would be a sad, sad world if we all loved and hated the same games." Too true. And Dynasty Warriors is awesome, so there.

Look i hate to be simple but he didn't like the game, so why is this even necessary? Do you really think people are that stupid they read John Walkers article and thought "Hey he's 100% right i'm going to change my way of thinking". It was nice to have a different opinion put in front of us, so why do you have to criticise it? We all know what people who enjoyed the game thought(I'm one of them) so why do you need to pick apart his comments? Sorry i just feel this whole comment is totally uncalled for. Perhaps this could of been done in private? I dont know maybe thats just me. Also fellow commenters just like this article it is an opinion so dont flame me with you're wrong because... i'm well aware why you think i'm wrong, i wrote this comment.

Look i hate to be simple but he didn’t like the article, so why is this even necessary? Do you really think people are that stupid they read Brendan Keoghs article and thought “Hey he’s 100% right i’m going to change my way of thinking”. It was nice to have a different opinion put in front of us, so why do you have to criticise it? We all know what people who enjoyed the game thought(I’m one of them) so why do you need to pick apart his comments? Sorry i just feel this whole comment is totally uncalled for. Perhaps this could of been done in private? I dont know maybe thats just me. Also fellow commenters just like this article it is an opinion so dont flame me with you’re wrong because… i’m well aware why you think i’m wrong, i wrote this comment.

If youre going to be a journalist and write editorials bashing the biggest game of the year you better be able to handle a polite, well thought out response. How is it disrespectful to say "i respectfully disagree"? The point of putting a response like this out there is to address both sides rather than letting one bias opinion float around like that. Sure, the guy might not have liked the game, but many people loved the game and bought it and play it for hundreds of hours.. Anything that can accomplish that is a game, plain and simple. Was the game overblown and stuffed with too much action? Id have to agree, but if someone is having fun while playing, I consider it to be a game. He is attempting to break the game down into the basic concepts of being an "un-game" and yet he uses Half Life 2 as an example. HL2 and MW3 are the same thing on the most basic level, it is the pacing and set pieces that make the game what it is. On the most basic level, even in half life 2, I still have to move toward the next objective, shoot the next wave of enemies, repeat. There may have been some down time in HL2 to explore, and some puzzles added in, but that all comes down to pacing and content, not actually being a game on a basic level. In that sense MW3 is a game.

nicknock100 on October 20, 2011 i think that No otcnury for old men' would be cool just so long as you play as the bad guy with the MEATY shotgun cuz well watch the film, i think its very good AND the bad guy doesn't die so the Game has an ending to it without the player going through all the effort just to find out he dies anywaybtw, the shotgun is AWESOME!!!!!!

Ypu just can't make the "your playing it wrong" argument. If someone does play the game wrong, it tge games fault for failing to convert the games rules to the player, or having teles that are arbitrary. John highlughted that this game is guilty if the latter, its never clear why your following our why you can't open doors withiut the games permission. You don't even come close to responding to the points raised.

Surely you can't be serious?
It IS NOT the job of the game to mold to the style of the player. Granted, some do, but games have different styles. If you want a game where you get drive the narrative and control the outcome find a game that lets you do that.
COD isn't one of those games. People are perfectly entitled to dislike it, but to say it's a bad game because it doesn't conform to your play style is ridiculous.

But i see this in reviews ALL THE TIME. Gamers who love just nintendo or sega or one particular branch of the tree always pan games that arent their style. Fuck ive known people who couldnt touch anything that wasnt a japanese rpg and branded players who played non JRPG's as brash idiot jocks.

A game should be judged on how well it stands up to its predecessors and how it has helped its genre and perhaps how well it has brought people into gaming itself. (all things i think that COD has done fantastically) Not by whether or not the reviewer likes that type of game.

That's not what I'm describing. Games shouldn't pander to the audience, but we should have moved beyond arbitrary (or ill-defined) rules by now. Having to wait for guys to come open a door for you is immersion breaking. I haven't played the game, but it didn't sound like John went out of his way to break the game, he just played it faster than the game wanted him to. That's arbitrary.

I don't think there's anything wrong with set-pieces and pre-scripted events, but if they're done right, you mostly won't notice it. Your guided to the correct behaviour. If you need an example, look at the ending of HL: Episode 2. Hardly anyone realised the end sequence was scripted without being told. This is the distinction I'm making.

He played the game faster than the game wanted him to play it? So every time I run ahead of an NPC who walks slower than me and I have to wait for them to advance, we consider it an "un-game"? Well then, lets also consider Skyrim an "un-game" considering how I had to wait for NPC's all the time to trigger quests chains to continue on after starting them and such. And once again, a game people consider to be the greatest FPS of all time, Half life 2, you still had to wait for Alyx Vance to unlock doors for you at certain points, and youre the almighty gordan freeman with the gravity gun FFS. Gimme a break, realize that all of the things youre griping about with COD are present in some capacity in all of the games you play, its just that COD is the target because it stays the same.

John Walker is a scruffy-looking nerfherder.
The "game" of Call of Duty is not in deciding where to go, what doors to open, or indeed who opens the doors - you "win" by strategically (or not) eliminating all enemies in your path; you "lose" by dying.
You're not here to engage with the world, you're here to engage with the dudes shooting bullets at you. The story is simply part of the (awesome) backdrop that makes the experience enjoyable.

You know, this is an interesting article. The original Dues Ex probably remains my favourite game of all time, and it's because I really loved the experience of being able to approach the situations in the games in practically any way imaginable.

At the same time, I can also get a good bit of enjoyment out of more linear experiences by, yes, essentially just sitting back and doing as instructed. More rigidly confined games can work too. I never really thought about the core implications, though, of the differences and, more interestingly, the similarities in these playstyles. In both cases you're working with the confines of the game to try and have an enjoyable experience, just sometimes they're broad and other times, well, not so much.

As an amateur gaming journo I've always endeavored to focus on whether or not it was any fun to play above all else when talking about games, and I guess that's the point this article is stressing in a roundabout way. And to take into account, when I didn't enjoy something, if it was because the game was poor, or simply not to my tastes. For example, I really didn't care for Oblivion, but I'd never say it's a bad game - it has some flaws, and it has a whole lot more things that simply aren't for me personally.

Speaking of taste, thought this article might've wanted to address the concerns in the original article about shock value for the sake of shock value, seemed like a core part of that article.

I also think your assertions that John is an un-player are about as harsh and unnecessary as his claims that MW3 is an un-game. He's just a different kind of player, more suited to a different kind of game.

I loved it, I think it's by far the best campaign out of any FPS this year. I love COD and Battlefield but I personally find the BF campaigns embarrassing. I really struggle to finish them. Don't get me wrong, I still find BF3 a great game for it's intcredible multiplayer but campaign wise MW3 definitely wins out of 2011's FPS releases's in my opinion.

I still think I'm with John on this one, but for entirely different reasons. I don't care if I am the lead protagonist in a game or not, but the ever increasing game design restrictions (quick time events, linear hallways, follow objectives, do this/do that etc) employed by developers today I find both boring and unimmersive. You combine this with what I believe to be degrading gameplay mechanics (chest high walls, mandatory cover systems, regenerating HP, two weapons only, FOV of like 60, retardedly slow movement and game speed) and you start to see how every AAA FPS game in the last 1/2 decade has degraded into the exact same game, over and over again. It feels more like I am fighting the game than playing the game. This video pretty much sums it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

I've recently picked up Serious Sam 3, a game that will ultimately go unnoticed by most of the populace, and have had more fun in this than I have in any FPS game in the last 1/2 decade. That's because it is actually a FPS game, and not a follow-linear-corridor-manshoot-quicktimeevent-10hrcinematic ungame.

If it's the battle I am thinking of, you need to find a balance between shooting the monsters running/firing at you and shooting the orange lasers beaming down new enemies. This is pretty hard when it keeps moving around and headless kamikazis are running at you from every direction. I recommend waiting for it to stop moving and start teleporting, firing 2-3 rockets at a teleporter and then switching to the assault rifle for a few seconds of followup damage. Then start swearing madly as you try to mop up the 30 or so enemies you have been ignoring :)

Funny how there is usually so much more strategy to oldskool shooters even with their apparently brainless and simplistic gameplay ...

Am I really the only one who likes games to be innovative and not the same shit every year? Does no-one see what CoD is doing to other games? Lets see...

-Bioware has alienated its core audience (and even blatantly said this) and tried to make their RPGs more like shooter-action games
-Most FPS games now have a generic storyline where America gets attacked, most of the time it's by Russia
-FPS games all share the same mechanics in one way or another (aiming down sights, going prone, killstreak bonuses)
-Developers have been discouraged to make new games better, instead we get games that are essentially the same as the last

Why reviewers gobble this up is beyond me. I find the thought of reviewers not being paid off when it comes to this very hard to believe.

Firstly, why is this article full of typos? Someone call a proof-reader!

On-topic: I can't really agree with you, Brendan. As both you and John have described it, Modern Warfare 3 sounds like it so -desperately- wants to be a movie rather than a videogame. I don't think it's fair to say that John "refused" to suspend disbelief, or chose to not participate with the game: it seemed to me that he was unable to do so, as a sophisticated gamer. By "sophisticated", I don't mean to suggest that John is some lofty, snobby elite, but that he's been trained to expect different things from a game than he found in Modern Warfare's latest installment. Player freedom is of course not the only metric worth examining (lest Garry's Mod be the best thing ever), but it certainly -is- worth counting when reviewing a piece of fundamentally interactive media.

Why can't a game be half cintematic? It's happening more and more lately with better graphics anyway.
Here's one for your.... what is the definition of "Game"?
I dont think it's fair for a critic to fire up a game, expect freedom, and review it badly when it has none.
It all comes down to expectation. Play the game for what it is, for what it's supposed to be.
If it's got an awesome story, follow the story. If its all about rollercoaster action, get on the rollercoaster and enojy. If its about exploration then go explore etc. It's like critisizing GTA for having bad aiming or repetative melee combat.... it's just not what it's all about.

"stop using “freedom” as a metric for a game’s quality or, even worse, for a game’s gameness."

Too fucking right. Remember games like pong, space invaders, tetris, or even pac man? These games have far less freedom than call of duty, yet they're heralded as classics. What people need to stop doing is buying a game expecting a sandbox, and buy a game expecting a game. Customization, choices and open worlds were NEVER a foundation for a good game, as those aforementioned gaming classics prove.

I think your belief of foundation for a good game is inherently flawed mainly because there are many a great game based on those foundation. Hell the entire elder scroll's series has been.

What people are expecting is the ability to actually play the game instead of watching an interactive movie about a soldier who walk's down hallway's from set piece to set piece. Shooting when the player tell's him to.

Why can't we have some tactic's. why can't I even attempt to fight my way into the castle. instead of just following price's lead.

It is still the same location still the same enemies. The only thing that changes is my approach. And it's the kind of thing that gave shooter campaign's replayability.

I mean hell use Halo as an example(i haven't played any of the 360 ones) so i'll stick with Halo 1. It had a story, it let you play through each area using your own tactic's. Want to run headfirst into that building with a pistol and assualt rifle go ahead.

want to utilize that sniper you found to pick some off first before you do that go ahead.

As opposed to MW3 which is heavily choreographed to ensure the player is always where the developer expect's them to be so they can trigger the next part of Set Piece Extravaganza.

Hell Pac-Man is in a way one of the ultimate freedom game's your shown a level layout your shown where the power up's are and it's your choice how you enact your plan to get them all without getting killed by ghost's.

Anyway, John Walker wrote something that shows he actually Gets It. Why lambaste that? Fact is, he's right. Call of Duty is nothing more than as asset tour, holding your hand the entire way and sometimes letting it go so you can whack a few moles. It is not a game.

You do not have to prepare before taking on the 'challenge'.
There are not multiple ways of defeating said 'challenge'.
There are not even multiple types of challenge.
There are very few abilities at hand.
Even on the higher, err, 'difficulty', different skills are not required.
There aren't even multiple success states.

It requires no thinking. You say to criticise "...it's (arguable) glorifying of war or the complete lack of female characters or the implausibility of its plot if you wish. You can even talk about how it is or isn't well paced and how the set-pieces are or aren't well directed..." but NONE of these things actually relate to how it is as a game (I long for italics).

It's not about freedom. It's no about "sandbox" (GTA is guilty of many of the things CoD is). It's about giving the player meaningful choices and not forcing them down a pathway. If Tetris and Pacman could do it, why should modern games become more cinemersive than, I dunno, interactive?

CoD is a Shaky Cam movie with the bare minimum of player input. And for God's sake, the multiplayer is awful too, let's not kid ourselves.

You do not have to prepare before taking on the ‘challenge’.
There are not multiple ways of defeating said ‘challenge’.
There are not even multiple types of challenge.
There are very few abilities at hand.
Even on the higher, err, ‘difficulty’, different skills are not required.
There aren’t even multiple success states."

None of these are fundamental requirements for a game. You cannot un-game a video game just because it doesn't play how you want. You are clearly looking for a different game, that's all.

Well, by the sounds of it, everyone was expecting a game full of freedom, but cod games have never been about that. So, I ask, why was anybody expecting anything more than an interactive movie?
And besides, it's not the gaming community at large that decide how a game plays, it's the developer. If you don't like the games the developer makes, then why are you playing them? Obviously there are plenty of vocal people out there who dislike the way cod plays, because it's now how THEY want it to play. Games are not supposed to personalized, games are made how developers want to make them. The choice of whether or not people want to play it is up to the player. Yes, CoD is a bit like an interactive movie. Is that a bad thing? The answer to that question is subjective, because there's this thing called an opinion.
Why can't you fight up to the castle instead of following Price? Because that's the way the developer wanted to develop the game. I could ask why we can't piss on our enemies dead corpses and wield inflatable sex toys as weapons and still questioning the limits of the game in the same way you are.
What you're asking for, is not call of duty. What you're asking for, is a different game.
You're asking "why did you make me play call of duty", and the answer to that question is "you played call of duty because you chose to". The developer, nor the publisher, nor anyone else ever said "HEY GUYS, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY OPEN WORLD GAME FULL OF CHOICE AND SHIT".
Call of duty has always been about walking down hallways from set piece to set piece. Why are you questioning the fact that *this is what the game is*? You're vocalizing the fact that call of duty is call of duty (shock horror, right?) and not a completely different game. That's like going and buying a sports game, starting it up and thinking "HOLY SHIT I'M SO PUMPED FOR THE GREATEST ACTION RPG OF ALL TIME", playing it, and then bitching that the game doesn't let you cast fireballs.

"It had a story, it let you play through each area using your own tactic’s."
Who says you can't do the same in cod? You can run in, hipfiring every little shit you see, or you can go in slowly, methodically, picking off people one by one, you can flank enemy positions if the level design grants you to do so, and in general there are many flanking opportunities, or you can sit back and snipe. You can't pretend like there are any more tactics in other FPS games because that is completely untrue. Sure, Halo might feel larger in CoD in terms of scale, but in the end, you're still shooting people from point A to point B. If anything, the only thing that makes Halo different from CoD is the fact that enemies have much larger health pools in Halo.
And don't pretend like Pac-Man has any more choice than CoD. Sure, you can choose to pick up power ups, just like you can choose to man mounted weapons, pick up other weapons, teabag fallen enemies, etc.
So pretty much, your reply is entirely flawed, and it honestly makes you sound like you have never played a call of duty game in your life. I couldn't care less whether you have or not, whether you thought the story was garbage, whatever. The fact is that you're all bitching that call of duty is call of duty, and not your own open world choice filled personalized experience full of freedom, which nobody has ever claimed the game to be.

I still have been unable to finish the campaign. Just lost complete interest. Same with Black Ops. These 2 CODs have been the only ones I cannot bring myself to play through the campaign. And unlike most people that purchased MW3 I actually brought it for the campaign due to hating COD multiplayer.
While I did enjoy what I have played so far, up to paris, the game just leaves me feeling empty. Cannot really explain it any better. Guess I will get around to it one day, when I'm bored.

You summed up my thoughts here. I loved MW1 and 2s campaigns and flew through them. I was really excited about MW3 but every time I sit down to play I get 20 minutes in and just turn it off uninterested. I can't put my finger on it but there's just something missing / wrong with it? Maybe its too much of the same MW2'ness or maybe the lack of juxtaposition that makes the constant extremeness just feel mundane. I don't know but there is something lacking for me.

If any one thing about The Last Jedi has been contentious -- actually, no, strike that, everything about The Last Jedi has been contentious, including its approach to space combat (the Holdo Manoeuvre, anyone?). But according to one fan and critic, Rian Johnson's epic actually makes space combat in the Star Wars universe more explicable, not less.